District 9 Movie Review Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 91 - 93 of 93
<<  <  7 8 9 10 
shadowprime 8/20/2009 6:31:44 AM

 

And as to "plot holes" - I do think there is a difference between a plot hole and something that is not explained. Maybe that is just me, and I grant, there is subjectivity in that assessment. 

For example... I thought one of the strengths of CLOVERFIELD was that they structured the story so that they didn't need to give some lame, quickly problematic explanation of how a giant monster could exist or why it was attacking NYC. In a giant monster movie, a certain amount of willing suspension of belief is pretty much a given, but lets face it, when the psuedo-science gets hauled out, it rarely satisfies. So CLOVERFIELD made it a non-issue. Uh oh... the giant monster is attacking NYC. As one critic noted - you can assume that, somewhere, there is a room full of guys in white lab coats, acting out the scene you have seen in a million monster movies, offering up those lame, phony explanations about the monster... but we don't see that, and we don't need to. So I don't see that as a "plot hole", but as a conscious choice by the moviemakers. We are going to fill in this and this and this as backstory, but we AREN'T going to explain this and this and this.

Simiiarly.... SPOILERS... in D9, there is a lot we don't know. What happened to the alien leader-class? There is speculation (disease, a lost command module - although that module MAY appear later in the movie), but... we don't know.  Why haven't OTHER aliens come to look for THESE aliens - a rescue or follow-up mission - if it is apparently a three year round trip from our world to theirs? Again, we don't know.. What was brought down from the ship, and by whom, and when? We aren't sure. I understand the misgivings concering obvious weapons, and the big "exosuits", but they didn't bring me up short. And I didn't feel that the lack of answers to these and other questions did damage to the story, or suggested logical inconsistencies.

I think it is perfectly fair to say that there is much that D9 doesn't answer - I just don't think the answers are required to enjoy the story, as is.

Shadow

 

2L82Pray 8/21/2009 10:24:33 AM

There are plot holes, but not, IMO, what was mentioned.

Someone said much earlier that the movie made them proud to be South African. Why? It brought back too many unpleasant parallels between South Africa's history of Apartheid and the Aliens. It made it look as though SA hadn't learned anything from their past and are still mired in ignorance and prejudice. Its sad that the film makers have so little respect for their countrymen that they would portray them the way they were in this movie.

The logical inconsistancies are the lack of international interferance and control. Are we to believe the most powerful NATO counties didn't want any involvement in the obvious gains from Alien intelligence? That there were no attempts to take control of the technology? Even more unbelievable is the lack of protests by civil rights supporters against the treatment inflicted on the aliens by the SA government. It would have been more believable to show the WWIII breaking out to gain control of the aliens than that they were shoved into a concentration camp and all but forgotten.

Overall, though, an excellent movie and well worth the time and money.

LittleNell1824 8/22/2009 1:35:05 PM

Well, Shadow, I've met some CEO's and a few were real sociopaths. It's not as implausible as you might think. Think about Monsanto suing the pants off small farmers because Monsanto grain blew onto private farm land. Think about big tobacco working to make cigarettes as addictive as possible while cowing the FDA into claiming that nicotine wasn't addictive at all.  It takes a real _astard to give the go ahead on some of this stuff. And Mr. CEO-in-Law was definitely a socio-path. He didn't love Wikus and I'm sure he was more than happy to get rid of him.

SPOILER:
One of the great things about this movie is how dim-witted Wikus is throughout the whole movie. Sharlto Copley was amazing. We've seen anti-heros who were morally compromised, but I don't think we've ever seen one so... enthusiastically ordinary. Wikus was the real drone - he was only capable of meaningful action when he was under Christopher's direction.

The weapons weren't a plot hole: Yes, military aircraft and other rescue craft were used to bring aliens down, but I don't see how that makes a difference. To assume that weapons couldn't have made it down from the ship, you would have to assume that no human personnel would have allowed it. We know that's not true. There's always going to be a couple of guys who either won't notice, won't care, or who are in on the take. And my explanation isn't an apologetic. It's just how things would happen in the real world.

<<  <  7 8 9 10 

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.